The lines of feminist influence

It’s actually somewhat comforting to know that digital Ragnarok never ends. The really crappy part of Ragnarok is the end.

Point well taken about the normal non-ideological women, a point equally true of the ordinary member of most politicized groups. It’s been a point of pride for conservative women to point out that feminist leadership doesn’t speak for them, or really for most women.

But I don’t think that’s the game. It’s not about feminist leaders influencing the majority of women directly. It’s about feminist leaders influencing the media, which then handles the interface with normal women. The same structure applies to most political collectives at the national level – arguably even some sectors of organized labor, where the rank-and-file guys seem kind of dazed by the actions of Big Labor leadership, even though Big Labor bosses claim to speak for all workers.

The media fulcrum is especially pronounced for feminist leaders; they’ve got staggering levels of influence in Washington, New York, and L.A., and that filters through both general media and channels oriented specifically towards women. In other words, I suspect the average woman of 2013 – especially that intriguing young and single demographic – does not realize just how much influence a relatively small, politically active feminist core has over their attitudes.

Breaking that influence might require interfering with its transmission system, which is why I found Glenn Reynolds’ recent suggestion for conservative big shots to buy a woman’s magazine so interesting. That sort of thing sounds more useful than plowing another zillion dollars into the hands of political consultants.